"A well regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Oft times people overlook
this very important part of the Second Amendment and only concentrate
on the second half, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
But, what is being said here is necessary to the security of a free state?
Yes, a Well Regulated Militia. Regulated, as many people have pointed
out, means well trained and well armed.

We see, according to the
Second Amendment, just keeping and bearing arms is not necessary. A
WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the security of a FREE
state. I cannot know what American Revolutionaries meant, I can only assume.
If they thought only keeping and bearing arms was necessary they could
have worded the amendment something along the lines of "The Right
of People to keep and bear arms being necessary to the security of free
state, shall not be infringed." But they did not word it like that.
They worded it as "A well regulated Militia."

What inference can we draw
from this? The Founding Fathers understood that only having arms will
not do. People who own arms MUST be organized and trained.
Organized and trained as a militia ready to defend their Freedom and Liberty
from any threat from anywhere.

This has been long forgotten
by most of the people outside the Freedom Movement. Let's put that aside
for a moment.

What do the forces allied
against freedom demonize the most? The militia movement. The militia movement
has been demonized in the media, in schools, by almost all the politicians
and even in neo-conservative publications and magazines. One would ask
why would they demonize the militia movement so much. Is it because it
stuck at some point that the freedom movement in general was missing out?

The statists always come
up with an argument in favor of the Big State using the argument of security.
A big state can provide good security. And Libertarians are made to back
off using this argument again and again. The question is put to the ordinary
public whether they would choose liberty or security? Brave people who
lived in early America would obviously choose liberty. But public indoctrination
centers have made cowards out of most of the population and they would
invariably choose security.

But that is the wrong question.
There is a quote, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions
they don't have to worry about the answer." The question asked must
be, "How can security and liberty be made possible simultaneously."
I see some liberty-oriented people in the media and they beat the drum
that we should not give up our fundamental rights. The average man and
woman out there simply do not receive that message favorably. The debate
must be changed to how can liberty and security be achieved at the same
time.

The answer is simple: The
Militia.

Militia can preserve both
liberty and security at the same time. Militia is composed of all the
people capable of bearing arms. That means that the Tyrant(s) will have
to fight each and every man. But then it defeats the whole purpose of
the Tyrant(s). If he will kill all the people then whom will he rule?

"You cannot
enslave a free man, the most you can do is kill him."
- Robert Heilein

This is the reason why Switzerland
remained independent because any invading army would have to fight every
last Swiss man. A militia may not have as much firepower as a professional
army, but it has the huge advantage of a large amount of manpower. And
when the militia collides with an invading professional army, militia
has two further advantages, it is fighting in home territory and it can
fight guerrilla warfare. Furthermore militiamen are fighting for their
freedom and have nothing to loose as opposed to the invading standing
army that fights for various reasons.

At the same time militia
also provides very high security, as much security as is humanly possible.
How is this so? Because the militia can be in all places; whereas, the
police or standing army cannot. This is the simplest reason why militia
provides great security. They are present everywhere and can combat any
trouble from criminals and control freaks (tyrants) at any place where
such criminals might try to infringe upon life, liberty or property of
free people.

But the often-overlooked
third great advantage of militia is maintenance of peace. A militia fights
their best to defend their country, but its hardly likely that militia
will get ambitious and go around invading other countries without legitimate
grievances. That is one reason why Tyrant wannabees weaken the militia
and strengthen the standing army. With a huge standing army comes imperialist
ambitions and desire to stick their nose in other countries business.
Militia people tend to fight their best to defend their country, but leave
other countries to mind their own business. Such is the usefulness of
militia. Three in one package deal: Liberty, Security and Peace. Militia
may want to consider adopting this motto.

But why then do we see very
few militias in the history of the humanity. For the same reason we see
very little Liberty in the history of humanity. So far the history of
humanity has been one of oppression and war. America was the first country
to base its most basic philosophy on the ideals of Freedom and Natural
Rights and thus it was one country where militia flourished. Or it is
highly likely that because the militia flourished in old colonial days,
freedom was flowing through this land. It has been said that Capitalism
made America great, but another very important thing that made America
great is forgotten: A well regulated Militia.

Freedom is linked to the
maintenance of a militia, not just a right to keep and bear arms. Coming
back to our earlier point on the topic of Demonization of militias. I
asked the rhetorical question: Did the militia movement hit on a key weakness
of the statists? It's my opinion that it did.

Normally Liberty, Security
and Peace are three different things, and the welfare-warfare state despises
all three of them because its revenue depends on propagation of fear and
war. Nobody denies that the Libertarian party is the most pro-freedom
party in America. But a lot of people are simply not interested in freedom.
Some place Security above Liberty, others place Peace over liberty.

Patrick Henry said, "Is
life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains
and slavery? Forbid it almighty god. I know not what course others may
take, as for me give me Liberty or give me Death."

Sadly a large percentage
of the population would say that life is dearer than liberty and peace
is sweeter than freedom. Statists know that in the face of huge opposition
it would take the Libertarian Party decades to turn ordinary citizens
into liberty lovers like Patrick Henry. Statists also know that they would
break down the resolve of lot of libertarians in this large time period.
Thus the Libertarian Party was just brushed aside by them.

During the mid 90's Militias
were popping up all over the country. In reality militias were defensive
in nature, and the people who promoted violence were mostly agent provocateurs
sent by Globalists. Why would the people who control the media who knew
militias weren't dangerous portray them as such? Maybe because Militias
offered a three in one deal to the citizens: Liberty, Security and Peace.

Now an ordinary person might
choose security over liberty, but people in America are still pro-freedom.
If they could get both of them, they would surely take it. If the militia
movement had succeeded this is what the people would have got. The rank
and file Liberals would also have realized that instead of a world full
of standing armies under the control of politicians, a world full of national
citizen militias would be a much safer and more peaceful world.

That is what, in my opinion,
had the elites of the neo-conservative movement and the liberal establishment
wetting their pants. A Militia can clear off the gangs without much trouble.
Militias can stop the Tyranny. Militias can stop any invading foreign
army. That is why it was necessary for them to demonize the militia movement
before people realized that if they wanted Liberty, Security and Peace
all at once then only one institution could provide such: A well regulated
Militia.

I was disappointed at the
CATO Institute's report that people have no right to
form into a militia. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably
assemble. The Second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms,
and the Ninth Amendment protects all other rights including right to self-defense.
Combining these three rights one can draw a logical inference that a group
of people have a right to come together; and furthermore, have a right
to individual as well as collective self-defense.

Article 1 Section 8 of the
Constitution clearly lists: "To provide for calling forth the militia
to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
Notice the precise words used. It lists to provide for calling forth the
militia. Now it would be ridiculous to assume that the militia, that is
all of the people, are not to train but are to wait until the last moment
of invasion. Thus we can assume that the training of the militia is to
be left in the hands of the militia itself. That means any laws against
paramilitary training would be unconstitutional.

So far I explored the reason
why the militia might be demonized, but what is going to be the future
of the militia?

Consider the fact that on
CNN they tried to link the Michigan Militia to Al Qaeda
saying that the Michigan Militia was down in South America in 1985. But
the Michigan Militia was formed in early or mid nineties. Clearly on a
channel such as CNN they could not make such a mistake. It was done on
purpose.

In the Denver spy file case,
the Libertarian Party was written up as a "militia" group. Now
anybody with a brain the size of a pea can see that the Libertarian Party
is the most peaceful party in the United States. Again it was not a mistake.

Patrick Henry said, "I
know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." I was just
a kid when the Reichstag - oops - I meant OKC happened, but most of the
readers might remember it well. According to what I gather, there was
a huge backlash against the Right Wing in general and militias and constitutionalists
in particular.

Alex Jones suggested on his
radio show that people instead of calling themselves militia call themselves
something that would be very hard for media to demonize. Say for example
Civilian Defense Forces. Civilian Defense Forces can do a variety of things,
from volunteering in community events like blood drives to get favorable
coverage from the media to educating the local kids about the Constitution.
But mainly the Civilian Defense Force can train themselves and others
to defend the civilians (their Life, Liberty and Property) against enemies
foreign and domestic, without being demonized by the media.

The above two examples (CNN
and Denver Spy Case) might serve as Red Flags of things likely to come.
The biggest threat to Globalist Tyranny or the New World Order is the
freedom movement. They know it, and they are not denying it. Indeed the
Globalists might create a crisis sooner or later, a crisis of large magnitude
to generate emotions of fear among the people, and then blame it on the
Radical Right, and lest you forget, that includes the Libertarians.

The times that try the soul
of men are coming...

Liberty Rogue is a 17-year-old student and liberty lover
in Michigan. Besides operating a website www.geocities.com/homeofliberty,
L. Rogue likes to play soccer, read philosophical works on freedom and
individual rights, and write fictional stories.